Chetak-> We are talking of strategic arms here. No some soap purchase.

Talking about customers, there is a thing called as reliable suppliers.

If Some guarantee can be given by Israeli, German, Austrian firms, you name the country, that they will set up manufacturing plants in India and no matter what happens, like a war like situation with Pukis or anther Pokran that they will continue supplies.

The truth all foreign suppliers are subject to American Veto and fact it is a lot easier to transfer arms agent commissions to foreign Banks without the scrutiny of Indian law or agencies.

Have fictitious companies in India and it can be detected much more easily than having front companies say in Italy.

We need as a nation to come with a privatisation plan for OFB's and weapons, small arms in general. While a foreign private co. can manufacture Bareeta's and Tavor's, Indian Private Industry is not allowed to enter this domain, how ironic?

Even a country like UK continues to use SA-80 which has a crappy record and not just import Colt M-4's. Which rifle in the world developed can function without problems in Siachen to Rajastan to jungles of North East and yet cost efficient and accurate upto 400 meters. Anyone developing such a weapon will face problems and more important in a Government monopoly like OFB and India Arms agent lobby. But we need to work on this and hopefully GOI irons out the Arms manufacturing policy. Imports of critical arms is like handing over the supplier your Key Foreign policy and Miltary decesions.

Next time you have terrorist attack, grin and bear it since others are not going to let you go to war. We can never stockpile 2months war reserves of weaponary, except 1971 war(thanks limited no western equipment) no nation including Israel which had lot of customised inhouse modifcations has won a war with 75% of its weaponary being imported whether India in 1962, Libya, Iraq and Syria or elsewhere. We have bitter experience of taps being turned off when we needed it. All the major powers in WW II made thier own weapons.

Chetak-> We are talking of strategic arms here. No some soap purchase.

Talking about customers, there is a thing called as reliable suppliers.

If Some guarantee can be given by Israeli, German, Austrian firms, you name the country, that they will set up manufacturing plants in India and no matter what happens, like a war like situation with Pukis or anther Pokran that they will continue supplies.

The truth all foreign suppliers are subject to American Veto and fact it is a lot easier to transfer arms agent commissions to foreign Banks without the scrutiny of Indian law or agencies.

Have fictitious companies in India and it can be detected much more easily than having front companies say in Italy.

We need as a nation to come with a privatisation plan for OFB's and weapons, small arms in general. While a foreign private co. can manufacture Bareeta's and Tavor's, Indian Private Industry is not allowed to enter this domain, how ironic?

Even a country like UK continues to use SA-80 which has a crappy record and not just import Colt M-4's. Which rifle in the world developed can function without problems in Siachen to Rajastan to jungles of North East and yet cost efficient and accurate upto 400 meters. Anyone developing such a weapon will face problems and more important in a Government monopoly like OFB and India Arms agent lobby. But we need to work on this and hopefully GOI irons out the Arms manufacturing policy. Imports of critical arms is like handing over the supplier your Key Foreign policy and Miltary decesions.

Next time you have terrorist attack, grin and bear it since others are not going to let you go to war. We can never stockpile 2months war reserves of weaponary, except 1971 war(thanks limited no western equipment) no nation including Israel which had lot of customised inhouse modifcations has won a war with 75% of its weaponary being imported whether India in 1962, Libya, Iraq and Syria or elsewhere. We have bitter experience of taps being turned off when we needed it. All the major powers in WW II made thier own weapons.

I agree with what you have said.

But... there is always a but. Our guys behave like babes in the woods.

Don't jump into something with a largely imagined capability.

If the PSU guys need training or whatever then send them abroad for courses or master's degrees or PhD's or whatever. You have to build capability any how, by hook or by crook. Don't see that happening in a planned and sustained manner.

Chetak- Yes the Mess is because GOI's OFB's monopoly policy, while allowing Foreign Private sector to compete. No amount of Foreign trainin g is going to solve that.

Reliable suppliers come from satisfied customers only. No supplier can declare himself reliable unless he has a satisfied customer. Applies to soap as well as weapons. It is the customer who has to declare the supplier as reliable.

No training or attempt to build required capabilities and no change in government policy is simply a lose lose situation.

The IA continues to suffer from bad equipment and its fatal consequences.

Don't think that will work very well in this case. The problem with the scheme that you've proposed is: let's say that OFB don't meet the deadline. Therefore you place an order to only buy X items from OFB and Y items from another manufacturer. Now you have two separate weapons systems that you have to train with, maintain and service. Instead it is better to buy (X+Y) items from the same manufacturer (whether OFB or some other manufacturer), as you may get a better price per unit for them and it reduces your logistics and training headaches.

The scheme is already being implemented in the HAL LUH deal so it's nothing new that I have proposed. I agree with your point sir the cons you have come up with the proposed schemes are very much a problem but also look at the pros sir like:Indigenous weapon system hence free from foreign arm twisting, strengthens mil-ind complex in the country, defence forces can take up any problem with the weapon system and get quick solution instead of begging infront of the foreign manufacturer, money spent on buying the weapon system is getting circulated in our economy instead of going outside, creating jobs hence reducing unemployment, creates a technological base which can be used as a springboard for creating future weapon system etc. etc.

You can add or subtract to the list but I am pretty sure that at the end the pros will outweigh the cons. Only when we don't have any know how of a particular weapon system or it will take ample amount of time to come up with an indigenous solution or when the lack of the weapon system seriously threatens our nations security shall we go for outside purchase. Even during such purchase we should in parallel start R&D so that in due time we can make that weapon system in house only.

ArmenT wrote:

Another scenario that could be worse is that say OFB fails the deadline, so you buy Y items from another manufacturer and give OFB a new deadline. Say then OFB fails to meet the new deadline too. In this scenario, you now have to place a separate order of M items from the other manufacturer and hope that OFB meets the next deadline and so on. Now you have a problem of making sure that the items reach the appropriate units in time. Additionally, the purchasing expenses then go up because neither manufacturer can now give you a good price since you're now ordering in smaller batches from them.

Sir before start of any project a detailed review is done to assess our capabilities so as to know the chances of the success that project has. In this case OF has ample amount of knowledge and production capacity to meet deadlines set (unless of course some babu/minister decides to screw the project by sitting on files) by the customer. So sir even though the scenario you project is a possibility has a small chance of becoming real unless the project involves technological breakthroughs in which case what you said has a high chance of becoming reality.

See sir what I want to say is that when purchasing from outside we are taking the risk of becoming dependent on their mercy and whims to fullfill our arms requirement and when trying indigenization route we take certain risks as pointed by you but in the latter case the payoff is huge instead of the former which has none.

While it is very easy to attack INSAS design, but let me give my 2 cents:-

1. INSAS rifle is a pretty advanced/modern design and new Russian AK designs are adopting the layout features of INSAS.

2. The main reason for attack on INSAS is to encourage imports and almost Rs 1000 crore of junk useless 9mm sub machine guns have already been imported on the pretext that INSAS is useless. 9 mm sub machine gun is 90 years old and easily be copied by any mid sized engineering company in few weeks (not even months).

3. Army has specifically barred the DRDO from designing a follow up of INSAS since 2000. (Per my personal discussion with DRDO people).

4. INSAS versus imports is T-90 vs Arjun story all over again.

5. No nation in the world has adopted inter-changeable caliber rifles. US Special forces adopted then dropped SCAR as being costly, complicated and found the feature useless.

6. Dislike for OFB should not detract us from cold analysis of mischief that is being perpetuated in Small Arms deals. Everything is sought to be imported like Pistols, assault rifles, LMGs, HMGs, 7.62 x 51 rifles, SMGs, HMGs etc.

7. We are perhaps the only nation in the world where import lobby can kill indigenous products. Perhaps Indian Chicks are not as good as Romanian ones.

8. My Conclusion-INSAS design is sound but requires evolutionary update like any other equipment after 20+ years. We should license the design to Indian Pvt Sector who can provide W-W-W as side dish to the procurement department/DDMs.

Chetak-> we can argue till cows come home, but depending for Foreign Miltary equipment like Arab Horses for the Vijanagar Empire proved to be its undoing, Foreign equipment does nothing for your economy and Knowledge base as well provides leverage to foreigners. Besides who decides what the customer wants, the CRPF man who is using a defective Bareeta or Arms Agents, Politicians and MOD babus?

And 20 days into a Kargil type situation Jawans fighting at the front should then be told to wait for foreign ammunition and spare parts of guns to arrive awaiting Khan type clearence and above all pay 10X the price.

Army has specifically barred the DRDO from designing a follow up of INSAS since 2000. (Per my personal discussion with DRDO people).

Who is Army to bar an organization that directly reports to MoD? DRDO chain of command is complete independent of the services. There was - & still is - such a flourish of rifles Excaliber, MINSAS, Kalantak, Amogh, Trichy - that would not have happened if such a ban was in place.

I also remember a wheeled BMP development. Apparently the BMP had been reversed - the BMP's rear was modified to be the front. The raison d’être was not known other than the desire for a wheeled APC. We've been manufacturing South African wheeled APCs at OF for ages and those vehicles are good. Not sure of the need to mutate a BMP.

R&D in any sector needs passion & dedication, not fixation over overtime. If you read the above review, you'll find that the passion for a good job done is completely extinct.

While it is very easy to attack INSAS design, but let me give my 2 cents:-

1. INSAS rifle is a pretty advanced/modern design and new Russian AK designs are adopting the layout features of INSAS.

Almost no one here is criticizing INSAS's design. While it may not be a very advanced design, many agree that it is a good design nevertheless and has pretty good accuracy and reliability. OFB's implementation of the above design is a completely different matter and that is what people are criticizing. Can you give a reference that Russian AK designs are adopting layout features of INSAS? For what it is worth, INSAS has quite a bit of layout influence from AKM and FN-CAL. I'd say that was a deliberate and very good decision because it is a good idea to re-use what is known to work well + India already had years of experience building the SLR, which is a semi-auto version of FN-FAL.

vic wrote:

2. The main reason for attack on INSAS is to encourage imports and almost Rs 1000 crore of junk useless 9mm sub machine guns have already been imported on the pretext that INSAS is useless. 9 mm sub machine gun is 90 years old and easily be copied by any mid sized engineering company in few weeks (not even months).

Hearsay. Sub machine gun <> assault rifle. They are two different classes of weapons and are used in different scenarios.

vic wrote:

3. Army has specifically barred the DRDO from designing a follow up of INSAS since 2000. (Per my personal discussion with DRDO people).

Your chaiwallas are directly contradicting statements made by Mr. S. Sundaresh (DRDO's Chief Controller of R&D) and Mr. Anil Dattar (ARDE Director). During 2010, they both reported that DRDO is working on F-INSAS.[1]

vic wrote:

5. No nation in the world has adopted inter-changeable caliber rifles. US Special forces adopted then dropped SCAR as being costly, complicated and found the feature useless.

The first statement is true (though I believe Aussies tried that). The second isn't quite true. For one, SCAR comes in multiple variants (Mk. 16 fires 5.5x6x45 mm. NATO and Mk. 17 fires 7.62x51 mm. NATO). SOCOM is now dropping the Mk. 16, but are continuing to buy Mk. 17 and planning to develop a conversion kit later [2][3]. USN is buying both variants for use by their SEAL forces.[4] Note that this was only meant for special forces, not the entire US military. They have different requirements.

vic wrote:

6. Dislike for OFB should not detract us from cold analysis of mischief that is being perpetuated in Small Arms deals. Everything is sought to be imported like Pistols, assault rifles, LMGs, HMGs, 7.62 x 51 rifles, SMGs, HMGs etc.

Here's a cold analysis: if OFB has production quality issues AND no other Indian manufacturer is allowed to even compete with OFB per Indian laws, what other alternative is there besides importing? Quoting one chaiwallah, he made a bet with OFB reps that if he could pick 10 guns at random out of a batch of brand new guns fresh from OFB factory and fire one mag from each, that at least 3 of them would have loading issues or jam midway through the first mag. Not one rep would take him up on that bet. The fact that INSAS works well in Indian soldiers hands is a tribute to the IA's armorers and EME personnel, not OFB. NOTE: The above quotes are allegedly second or third hand from a chaiwallah and are not necessarily official and may not be true either -- take it for what it is worth only.

vic wrote:

8. My Conclusion-INSAS design is sound but requires evolutionary update like any other equipment after 20+ years. We should license the design to Indian Pvt Sector who can provide W-W-W as side dish to the procurement department/DDMs.

Good quality control procedures and private sector involvement would help a lot. Some of it is already being done. For instance, Neelkamal Plastics Pvt. Limited now makes the plastic mags for INSAS and seem to be doing a good job about it.

R&D in any sector needs passion & dedication, not fixation over overtime.

Sir you are mixing two things here, overtime relates to production R&D has got nothing to do with overtime. There is nothing like scientist getting paid for doing overtime. The overtime criteria applies to the workers only not to the officers in which cadre scientists, engineers and the gazetted officers in OFs belong to. The overtime thingy is not as big as it used to be MoD has cut it big time though in certain OFs it may exist depending upon the quantity of the work. MoD is not doling out money just because the workers want to do overtime, be assured of that. To overcome this "fixation" first the union culture and the red tapism has to be removed, till then the OFs will continue underperforming.

I don't see R&D lacking passion and dedication, the ups and downs that our scientists and engineers had to go through to overcome technological challenges while being paid diddly squat is well documented. If they were lacking passion and dedication then how come LCA, Arjun, Akash, Prithvi, Agni, Sagarika, Arihant are seeing the light of the day ??? DRDO has no say in who will be the production agency that's the decision of the MoD.

tsarkar wrote:

If you read the above review, you'll find that the passion for a good job done is completely extinct

Again sir this is the fruit of the culture that GOI has bred into PSUs and other production agencies under it so until change doesn't come from the top you will find the passion lacking.

A design agency designs a products, gets it tested, certified and then passes it to a production agency. The production agency is responsible for continuous improvement of the product based on 1. user feedback 2. evolving operational requirements.

No product is perfect, but there needs to be a continuous focus towards improving. Have we seen that? No.

All we see is emergency fixes here & there but absolutely no improvement.

Chetak-> we can argue till cows come home, but depending for Foreign Miltary equipment like Arab Horses for the Vijanagar Empire proved to be its undoing, Foreign equipment does nothing for your economy and Knowledge base as well provides leverage to foreigners. Besides who decides what the customer wants, the CRPF man who is using a defective Bareeta or Arms Agents, Politicians and MOD babus?

And 20 days into a Kargil type situation Jawans fighting at the front should then be told to wait for foreign ammunition and spare parts of guns to arrive awaiting Khan type clearence and above all pay 10X the price.

Let everyone see the worthwhile product. Don't divert issues by saying government policy does not favor the producer. If your product is that good, then the customers will find you.

Do not expect your customers who are already in a very high risk business to support you while you dick around in a public sector fashion producing foolish products which BTW no one asked for in the first place.

The very same money spent on the TAR would have produced a better result if sincerely invested in a project that was used to design anything using scientific methods. Half baked methods produce half based products. With the first cursory look at the TAR you can clearly seen the faulty design process. We have so many army exercises with so many nations using so many weapons. I have yet to hear of any OFB geek asking for feedback and using that as the part of customer requirements that get fed into the design process.

multi caliber guns, saras pusher aeroplane of the NAL fame, the kaveri engine which has finally found place in the engine room of a warship, a purpose for which it was never meant is just dicking around.

Why pusher design for the saras?? who asked for it?? what is the USP that made NAL choose it when there are very few such designs in the world?? coincidence or plain pigheadedness ??

or is it about how many PhD's got done at NAL while the pusher design was being touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread?

What about the three IAF guys who crashed and burned? Any heads that have rolled at NAL for this??

There is absolutely no effort to ask exactly what the customer wants. Are scientists / engineers too geeky to talk with ordinary cannon fodder??

Cleaning up procurement, vision of national comprehensive strength built on self sufficiency, and private sector competitiveness is the only way forward.

What is this great private sector mantra that everyone is touting?

What additional resources or capabilities or engineering expertise are these worthies going to invest in or materialize out of thin air that does not already exist in one form or the other in the PSUs or GOI controlled institutions?

What fantastic engineers or scientists are going to be recruited by these guys and from where??

Most of the "private sector" that is of interest to us are full of PSU or ex armed forces guys and this very same "private sector" is also actively poaching from the PSus, Armed Forces and DRDOs.

Is this the wondrous private sector that all are talking about?? mostly full of short cuts and big budget "speed money" deployment??

A design agency designs a products, gets it tested, certified and then passes it to a production agency. The production agency is responsible for continuous improvement of the product based on 1. user feedback 2. evolving operational requirements.

No sir the production agency's only interest is in to see the proper production of the product and any design change will come from the design agency. What you are saying is true if the design agency is integrated in the production unit even then unless and until the design department doesn't approve of the design changes the production guys wouldn't dare to change a thing. Design change means change in the production process which can be small to large depending upon the design change implemented. So sir all the user feedback, evolving operational requirements will be conveyed to the design department which will then implement the design changes and then pass it to the production guys who then accordingly plan the production process. A communication link exists between both the departments and consultations are carried out to implement any design change but be very clear about it that the production agency doesn't tinker with the design on it's own.

tsarkar wrote:

No product is perfect, but there needs to be a continuous focus towards improving. Have we seen that? No.

All we see is emergency fixes here & there but absolutely no improvement.

Sir OFs are production agencies only they are allowed to do very little amount of research on their own. DRDO is actively involved in improvements of the weapon system and till they don't pass it on OFs can do little about changing design.

In this TAR case though the designing seems to have been done by the OFT. The present status of the product is totally unclear and it will be too premature to pass judgement on it.

chetak wrote:

With the first cursory look at the TAR you can clearly seen the faulty design process.

A design agency designs a products, gets it tested, certified and then passes it to a production agency. The production agency is responsible for continuous improvement of the product based on 1. user feedback 2. evolving operational requirements.

No sir the production agency's only interest is in to see the proper production of the product and any design change will come from the design agency. What you are saying is true if the design agency is integrated in the production unit even then unless and until the design department doesn't approve of the design changes the production guys wouldn't dare to change a thing. Design change means change in the production process which can be small to large depending upon the design change implemented. So sir all the user feedback, evolving operational requirements will be conveyed to the design department which will then implement the design changes and then pass it to the production guys who then accordingly plan the production process. A communication link exists between both the departments and consultations are carried out to implement any design change but be very clear about it that the production agency doesn't tinker with the design on it's own.

tsarkar wrote:

No product is perfect, but there needs to be a continuous focus towards improving. Have we seen that? No.

All we see is emergency fixes here & there but absolutely no improvement.

Sir OFs are production agencies only they are allowed to do very little amount of research on their own. DRDO is actively involved in improvements of the weapon system and till they don't pass it on OFs can do little about changing design.

In this TAR case though the designing seems to have been done by the OFT. The present status of the product is totally unclear and it will be too premature to pass judgement on it.

chetak wrote:

With the first cursory look at the TAR you can clearly seen the faulty design process.

Care to explain it more sir ???

If one has fiddled with a vital parameter like cyclic rate without simultaneously addressing barrel dynamics then, either the customer requirements have not been properly understood or the requisite design capability is lacking and more importantly, the risk analysis has not been comprehensive. Was not Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) an integral part of the process?

If one has fiddled with a vital parameter like cyclic rate without simultaneously addressing barrel dynamics then, either the customer requirements have not been properly understood or the requisite design capability is lacking and more importantly, the risk analysis has not been comprehensive. Was not Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) an integral part of the process?

I don't know what design failure mode analysis OFT undertook but sir the one you mention does involving it in the design process guarantee a successful prototype ??? I mean are you saying that even during the designing stage all real world problems that might creep up leading to failure can be identified, analysed and taken care of in the designing stage itself ??? Also I want to know how by just looking at TAR you concluded that the design process itself is faulty ??? You might be right, just help me understand how you reached that conclusion just by looking at pics.

I sincerely hope that this is not the actual situation in our weapon producing units but unfortunately it is more likely than not. The concept of having a design agency in one location handing down designs to a manufacturing agency at another location that has minimal input in design changes in light of production experience reeks of "Indian PSU". It defies belief that such a "system" has managed to exist for 60 years in spite of the inevitable non-performance and waste. The fact that these are weapons meant to defend the country and on which the lives of our soldiers depend makes it criminal, not just idiotic.

In any production facility, no matter the materials or technology, there will always be someone on the floor who can "see" what the paper designers cannot and that will make a difference between "fail", "ok", "good" and "excellent". In the top manufacturing countries, this phenomenon is well understood and there is very tight, ongoing cooperation between floor and design people with constant access to specialists in various labs. Of course this all depends on a good understanding of the end-users exact needs. The common driving factor is quality which is dictated by accountability. In some systems, the accountability is achieved by a gun to the head and in others by competition and in yet others by both. We have none of these, just a system driven by seniority and sycophancy that drowns out merit lest it rock the boat and shine a light on talented individuals rather than the group. The results are out in the open for all to see.

What additional resources or capabilities or engineering expertise are these worthies going to invest in or materialize out of thin air that does not already exist in one form or the other in the PSUs or GOI controlled institutions?

What fantastic engineers or scientists are going to be recruited by these guys and from where??

Most of the "private sector" that is of interest to us are full of PSU or ex armed forces guys and this very same "private sector" is also actively poaching from the PSus, Armed Forces and DRDOs.

Is this the wondrous private sector that all are talking about?? mostly full of short cuts and big budget "speed money" deployment??

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how exactly private companies all around the world are able to compete and how they got started. Why would they invest when our procurement is a mess and when we have a huge PSU setup. It's the competitive system they create which maximizes the potential of their employees. If they don't produce they get the boot. India's military R&D and production (MIC) before British rule was largely in the hands of society and not the government.

What additional resources or capabilities or engineering expertise are these worthies going to invest in or materialize out of thin air that does not already exist in one form or the other in the PSUs or GOI controlled institutions?

What fantastic engineers or scientists are going to be recruited by these guys and from where??

Most of the "private sector" that is of interest to us are full of PSU or ex armed forces guys and this very same "private sector" is also actively poaching from the PSus, Armed Forces and DRDOs.

Is this the wondrous private sector that all are talking about?? mostly full of short cuts and big budget "speed money" deployment??

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how exactly private companies all around the world are able to compete and how they got started. Why would they invest when our procurement is a mess and when we have a huge PSU setup. It's the competitive system they create which maximizes the potential of their employees. If they don't produce they get the boot. India's military R&D and production (MIC) before British rule was largely in the hands of society and not the government.

When you create an entitled class like the GOI employees, these are the risks that you face.

In the Indian context which we are talking about there are very very few private sector organisations that can come up without including a large number of PSU/DRDO or ex Armed Forces guys.

This also includes the few foreign companies that have set up in India.

The mere fear of the boot is no magic wand for success. After some time people will simply not join such a company in India. The culture has to change in India.

The "prey base" for companies in India are largely the same as for the government companies or organisations. Leadership quality may differ here and there.

Quoting one chaiwallah, he made a bet with OFB reps that if he could pick 10 guns at random out of a batch of brand new guns fresh from OFB factory and fire one mag from each, that at least 3 of them would have loading issues or jam midway through the first mag. Not one rep would take him up on that bet. The fact that INSAS works well in Indian soldiers hands is a tribute to the IA's armorers and EME personnel, not OFB. NOTE: The above quotes are allegedly second or third hand from a chaiwallah and are not necessarily official and may not be true either -- take it for what it is worth only.

Brand new? Good news, you can fix it by not purchasing cheap magazines or stretching the springs overnight I imagine most of these problems get caught in the validation/transfer stage and not left as consistent artifacts for QC to catch?

^^^Cheap magazines?? The magazines were the standard ones delivered by OFB with the rifles.

It wasn't just magazine spring problems. The chaiwallah's boss was complaining about the fit of various other parts as well. Per his boss's rantings, things that shouldn't move did and things that should move didn't. QC seemed to be asleep at the helm and that's why he made the bet with the reps. Stuff that should have been caught at the factory wasn't.

When you create an entitled class like the GOI employees, these are the risks that you face.

In the Indian context which we are talking about there are very very few private sector organisations that can come up without including a large number of PSU/DRDO or ex Armed Forces guys.

This also includes the few foreign companies that have set up in India.

The mere fear of the boot is no magic wand for success. After some time people will simply not join such a company in India. The culture has to change in India.

The "prey base" for companies in India are largely the same as for the government companies or organisations. Leadership quality may differ here and there.

Agree to disagree. Again, competition incentivizes employees to produce or get the boot. How do you know people will simply not join a company in India b/c of this reason? People are joining Infosys, TCS, etc. The culture of India is just fine. It's the socialist monopolizing model which is the problem. Indians are natural competitors. The slow and inefficient PSUs just need to get out of the way.

Agree to disagree. Again, competition incentivizes employees to produce or get the boot. How do you know people will simply not join a company in India b/c of this reason? People are joining Infosys, TCS, etc.

Pardon my ignorance but I have seen quite a many people promptly name TCS, Infosys as some great Indian technological innovation companies who have dawned in an era of science and technology on an other wise dumb society. Please do dell me exactly there contribution technology wise which has led to India becoming technology capable in that field(s).

RoyG wrote:

The slow and inefficient PSUs just need to get out of the way.

Where is the existing private technological base which can be capitalized so that we can boot out the PSUs ???

To fill an initial order for 60,000 assault rifles, in the past two weeks the army has completed initial user trials of five guns contending for the contract, including U.S. firms Beretta and Colt, Israel's IWI, Switzerland's Sig-Sauer and Czech Republic's Ceska. Technical evaluations are to commence shortly, The Pioneer newspaper reported.

The winning assault rifle will come equipped with two 5.56mm and 7.62mm caliber interchangeable barrels along with conversion kits, with the 5.56mm option being used in a conventional war fighting role as the barrel will provide longer range, while 7.62mm configuration will be used in counter-terrorism and the counter-insurgency environment, as it will provide troops the capability to fire like AK-56 rifles.

The rifles that I think companies are offering:Beretta : ARX 160 comes with quick barrel change and all other bells and whistles.

Colt: M16 (don't think this has interchangeable barrel) or most likely ACR (IA is probably the only immediate hope of ACR to find a user)

IWI: Tavor 21 (don't think this has interchangeable barrel either or 7.62).

Agree to disagree. Again, competition incentivizes employees to produce or get the boot. How do you know people will simply not join a company in India b/c of this reason? People are joining Infosys, TCS, etc.

Pardon my ignorance but I have seen quite a many people promptly name TCS, Infosys as some great Indian technological innovation companies who have dawned in an era of science and technology on an other wise dumb society. Please do dell me exactly there contribution technology wise which has led to India becoming technology capable in that field(s).

RoyG wrote:

The slow and inefficient PSUs just need to get out of the way.

Where is the existing private technological base which can be capitalized so that we can boot out the PSUs ???

Landing contracts for big name companies all around the world requires a degree of innovation in coding and management I suppose. Point is it wasn't easy for these guys in the beginning but they were able to set a standard of quality which is respected globally. Do you honestly believe that any PSU can compete in the software arena?

If by technology you mean hardware, then yes currently we lack large scale fabrication infrastructure and an efficient 24/7 high power base to sustain it.

I don't think our society is dumb at all. On the contrary, we are the brightest and most creative and I think a lot of great innovation can take place through healthy competition. By booting out the PSU, I mean auctioning off most of the the manufacturing and R&D facilities to private players and then making them compete for gov contracts.

Moreover, we need to clean up our procurement process. This probably wont happen with the present gov.

Landing contracts for big name companies all around the world requires a degree of innovation in coding and management I suppose. Point is it wasn't easy for these guys in the beginning but they were able to set a standard of quality which is respected globally.

Having a huge foreign customer base surely does indicate that a company is good but my question was whether doing such improves India's technological prowess in some particular field(s) and whether TCS, Infosys have given a huge push to the technology sector in India by being innovation giants ??? Your post doesn't answer this question.I am asking particularly examples from these two companies because you named them.

RoyG wrote:

Do you honestly believe that any PSU can compete in the software arena?

Which PSU was/has been involved in providing software solution to Indian or foreign customer ??? I don't know of any and I don't think there is one. It's like if I ask you, do you honestly believe that TCS/Infosys can make an AESA radar ???

RoyG wrote:

If by technology you mean hardware, then yes currently we lack large scale fabrication infrastructure and an efficient 24/7 high power base to sustain it.

Technology doesn't mean only hardware/software. First of all you need people who create knowledge, technical base which comes from research oriented activities in universities which then goes on to create technology, then an Industrial setup is required which is mature enough to first absorb and then manufacture technology in mass. To sustain this you need an ecosystem supported by the government and of course a lot of money. I am sure I am missing many things in between but you get an idea of what requires to be done.

RoyG wrote:

By booting out the PSU, I mean auctioning off most of the the manufacturing and R&D facilities to private players and then making them compete for gov contracts.

OK lets consider that what you say happens, then what do you think will happen ??? The pvt. industry will absorb all these in a single day, move a magic wand over them and all our problems will be over ??? From the very next day they will start delivering sooper dooper never seen before "technology" ??? What happens to the experience purged during the carrying out of your "solution" to improve India's technical levels ??? Can you say with 100% guarantee (Note, I am not asking for 500% but only 100% ) that your solution will provide India with a strong technical/knowledge base ???

RoyG wrote:

Moreover, we need to clean up our procurement process. This probably wont happen with the present gov.

How big effect do you expect this will have on improving India's technical knowhow ???

Having a huge foreign customer base surely does indicate that a company is good but my question was whether doing such improves India's technological prowess in some particular field(s) and whether TCS, Infosys have given a huge push to the technology sector in India by being innovation giants ??? Your post doesn't answer this question.I am asking particularly examples from these two companies because you named them.

Again, they landed contracts because they are innovators in software and management. I brought up the example to demonstrate that software companies didn't have it easy in the beginning but it didn't stop them from establishing a name for themselves through hard work in a relatively short amount of time. Why can't this be the case for defense?

Quote:

Which PSU was/has been involved in providing software solution to Indian or foreign customer ??? I don't know of any and I don't think there is one. It's like if I ask you, do you honestly believe that TCS/Infosys can make an AESA radar ???

I asked you a simple question. Do you honestly believe the bureaucratic PSU setup can compete with big names in software? It's the work culture brought about through healthy competition which has brought about the best in their employees which helped them land many contracts globally. If by software for the AESA radar, then yes I think they could play a part eventually.

Quote:

Technology doesn't mean only hardware/software. First of all you need people who create knowledge, technical base which comes from research oriented activities in universities which then goes on to create technology, then an Industrial setup is required which is mature enough to first absorb and then manufacture technology in mass. To sustain this you need an ecosystem supported by the government and of course a lot of money. I am sure I am missing many things in between but you get an idea of what requires to be done.

I'm not discounting the role of government. I just feel that we've reached a point where privatization can help us bridge the gap in both manufacturing and R&D. Privatization isn't going to happen all at once.

Quote:

OK lets consider that what you say happens, then what do you think will happen ??? The pvt. industry will absorb all these in a single day, move a magic wand over them and all our problems will be over ??? From the very next day they will start delivering sooper dooper never seen before "technology" ??? What happens to the experience purged during the carrying out of your "solution" to improve India's technical levels ??? Can you say with 100% guarantee (Note, I am not asking for 500% but only 100% ) that your solution will provide India with a strong technical/knowledge base ???

No, I don't believe that the pvt. industry will absorb all these in a single day. The rate of privatization in the defense sector will depend on the area. Nothing is 100% in life. But yes, I feel that privatization of most PSU's can contribute immensely to a strong technical/knowledge base.

Quote:

How big effect do you expect this will have on improving India's technical knowhow ???

Again, they landed contracts because they are innovators in software and management. I brought up the example to demonstrate that software companies didn't have it easy in the beginning but it didn't stop them from establishing a name for themselves through hard work in a relatively short amount of time. Why can't this be the case for defense?

I have no idea of what type of innovation that these companies have done, never heard of any such innovative product of theirs that's why I asked you to point out to me their innovation which you have still to do.

Software companies you are eulogizing have been able to establish themselves not because they are supposedly "innovative" but because of the economic realities that govern the world today. Work done at the cheapest price, this is what every customer nowadays looks for. I don't have a problem with this setup but have a huge problem with the fact that these "innovative" software companies still play second fiddle when they can do much much more. Also this can't be the case in defence because these software companies capitalized on existing knowledge base and used it to get a foothold in the global market whereas in defence you have to follow the technology cycle as told in my previous post. A.K.Anthony had said sometime ago that "No country will part with it's A grade technology", this in short explains why India still lags in the defence field because we are still behind in the learning phase in terms of the western nation. The software companies didn't have to create the technology, they used the existing one which is by and large public unlike in the case of defence.

RoyG wrote:

I asked you a simple question. Do you honestly believe the bureaucratic PSU setup can compete with big names in software?

Now you have framed the question properly. Yes the PSUs can compete and beat the software companies but first removal of the bureaucratic setup is required which plagues the PSUs. MMS had whined about getting rid of red tapism but has done little to do away with it.

RoyG wrote:

It's the work culture brought about through healthy competition which has brought about the best in their employees which helped them land many contracts globally.

OK let's just accept what you say is right cause I don't have the patience to write long rebuttals.

RoyG wrote:

If by software for the AESA radar, then yes I think they could play a part eventually.

Being part "eventually" is one thing and being a part of it "now" is totally different but yeah when DRDO and PSUs are done developing the system they can definitely learn and boast about it on their site

RoyG wrote:

I'm not discounting the role of government. I just feel that we've reached a point where privatization can help us bridge the gap in both manufacturing and R&D. Privatization isn't going to happen all at once.

Agreed.

RoyG wrote:

But yes, I feel that privatization of most PSU's can contribute immensely to a strong technical/knowledge base.

This according to me is a mass misconception. Privatization does very little to make a strong technical/knowledge base but the ecosystem that you develop to support R&D is the real deal here. China has zero privatization but still it has an ecosystem to support R&D.

Quote:

How big effect do you expect this will have on improving India's technical knowhow ???

RoyG wrote:

?

I asked what effect do you think improving the procurement process or the process in general will have on improving India's technical knowhow ???

IWI's ACE family comes to mind, ACE 21,22,23 are standard 5.56 mm rifles with 35 round mags, interesting. The 31 and 32 fire 7.62 mm rounds and come in two barrel lengths. The 52 and 53 fire the 7.62*51 caliber with 25 mag rounds. Reliability should be good and might be a possible winner due to existing close ties with Issy. I think these could be acquired together with the Negev NG7 7.62 LMG (should be mass produced in large numbers with full-tot ideal replacement for ageing LMGs in inventory)

^^^^I'm guessing it has to do with some batches of the Beretta Mx4 Storm submachine guns that were supplied to the BSF. Some that were delivered to the BSF HQ at Gujarat sector had visible tool marks. BSF officials complained about it and Beretta sent a couple of guys to verify and agreed to replace a batch of something like 100-150 submachine guns. The BSF DIG said that problems were only reported from the Gujarat sector and the ones supplied to the other sectors were working fine. Last I heard, BSF guys were generally happy with it.

^^^^Izhmash has other problems to think about, such as how to get out of bankruptcy (they declared bankruptcy in April of this year). Production of some of their rifle models have been stopped because they are struggling to restructure. Recently, Mikhail Kalashnikov wrote a letter to Putin asking him to save the factory from complete closure. Link here.

Perhaps the OFB should offer to buy their production line machinery and engineers.